So, it is not even just a case of what is better, it is also a case of what someone wants to see. Subjective as hell.
As I have said before, the process of analog photography is an important part of photography as a hobby to me, and going by apug.com and other film orientated websites to many others as well. Those who are only interested in the images will obviously prefer digital. Those who enjoy the whole process will continue to use film (by the way only about 1% of those who take photos did their own processing even before digital came along the numbers probably have not changed that much, just the perceptions about them).
I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with it at this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and you will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the choice.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
Paul Stenquist wrote:
By the way, all these arguments are pointless, because they're based on conjecture. For example, no one is sitting there with a high quality print from a 16 megapixel camera comparing it to a high quality print from MF. And even if one of us were doing that others could say that one or the other really wasn't top quality. The only thing that will prove the point is time and the consensus opinion of history. Until then, it's all a matter of personal opinion, based primarily on pure conjecture.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005

